> URIs, URLs, and URNs: Clarifications and
> Recommendations 1.0
[[[
URI schemes in alternative trees will be distinguished because they will
have a "." in the scheme name.
]]] - http://www.w3.org/TR/uri-clarification/
Not according to RFC 2717:-
[[[
[...] Scheme names
in the new tree are then constructed by prepending the prefix to an
identifier unique to each scheme in that tree, as prescribed by that
tree's identifying document:
<prefix>'-'<tree-specific identifier>
For instance, the "foo" tree would allow creation of scheme names of
the form: "foo-blahblah:" and "foo-bar:", where the tree prescribes
an arbitrary USASCII string following the tree's unique prefix.
]]] - http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2717.txt
So that's an error, unless the above RFC has been obsoleted, or something.
Otherwise, it's a very good note. It addresses and competently explains the
difference between the contemporary and classical views, and why the
classical view is still so dominant even though it is out-of-date.
Hopefully, it will be the first in a series of documents that address the
series of questions that people have about URIs, and clear up any
misunderstandings that may remain. Good work, guys!
Cheers,
--
Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
:Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .